SIA LABIEKĀRTOŠANA-D · Energy · Latvia
High risk. 10 critical or high findings in GDPR outside view, Network security and 2 other checks.
SIA LABIEKĀRTOŠANA-D is a Latvian municipal company founded in 2004, evolving from a local government enterprise with roots dating back to 1944. The company provides a broad range of public services primarily focused on urban maintenance and infrastructure in Daugavpils, including street lighting maintenance, pest control, animal shelter services, energy systems, ritual services, landscaping, construction, gardening, household services, and transportation. With over 100 employees, it serves the local community and municipal needs. The website reflects a medium-sized, service-oriented municipal business with a clear focus on local public service delivery. Technically, the website is built on WordPress and uses jQuery, with a moderate performance profile and basic mobile optimization. The site is accessible and well-structured, though it lacks advanced SEO and accessibility features. Security posture is basic with HTTPS enabled but missing important security headers and no visible incident response or vulnerability disclosure mechanisms. Privacy and cookie policies are absent, indicating a gap in compliance with modern data protection standards. Overall, the security posture is moderate but could be improved by implementing security headers, privacy policies, and incident response contacts. The business credibility is supported by clear contact information and consistent branding. The website content is safe and appropriate for a general audience, with no adult or explicit content detected. The lack of WHOIS data limits full trust assessment, but the domain and content align with a legitimate municipal service provider in Latvia.
Scanned
NIS2 Art. 21(2)
This scan rated NIS2 with an earlier keyword method that is no longer shown; rescan for the per-article view. Risk management, continuity, supply chain, training, MFA, management oversight (Art. 20) and incident reporting (Art. 23) need internal evidence, and Guard cannot tell whether NIS2 applies to this organisation.
GDPR is indicative only, based on publicly visible signals: Articles 7, 12, 13 and 32 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive. Not a certification or legal assessment.
10 findings rated critical or high. Fix these first.
These are the privacy signals visitors and data protection authorities look for under GDPR.
EU businesses are subject to strict GDPR requirements
What to do: Implement comprehensive GDPR compliance including privacy policy, cookie consent, and data protection measures
GDPR requires a clear and accessible privacy policy
What to do: Add a comprehensive privacy policy page and link to it prominently
GDPR requires clear information about cookie usage
What to do: Add a dedicated cookie policy explaining cookie usage and purposes
GDPR requires explicit consent for non-essential cookies
What to do: Implement a cookie consent banner that appears on first visit
Services reachable from the internet are the first thing attackers probe. Anything open that does not need to be should be closed.
Port 3306 (MySQL) is publicly accessible - MySQL - Database server
What to do: Immediately restrict access to MySQL using firewall or VPN
Port 21 (FTP) is publicly accessible - FTP - Often unencrypted file transfer
What to do: Consider restricting access to FTP or implementing strong authentication
Security headers are instructions your web server sends to every visitor’s browser. Missing ones leave visitors more exposed to attacks such as clickjacking and injected scripts.
Forces HTTPS connections
What to do: Add "Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains; preload"
Prevents clickjacking attacks
What to do: Add "X-Frame-Options: DENY" or "X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN"
Controls resources the browser is allowed to load
What to do: Implement a Content-Security-Policy appropriate for your application
Need hands-on remediation? Email guard@offseq.com
This scan found 30 issues across 6 checks. Monitoring re-runs those checks daily, emails you when something material changes and records each fix, so you can show progress.
€25per month
Email alerts on material changes and an exportable JSON history of every change.
Billed monthly to your card. Cancel anytime. The full timeline opens with your unlock code.
€39.90one-time
Prices incl. 21% VAT. Secure checkout by Mollie; sold by SEQ SIA, Latvia.
Each check with its score, findings and the evidence it collected.
The security score runs 0–100, higher is better. It is the plain average of the security checks that completed in this scan, each counted equally. A check that could not run is left out: it counts neither as a pass nor as a fail.
Counted in this score
Not counted
Findings that cap the score at 49
Each of these is serious on its own, so while any is present the site cannot rate better than high risk, however good the other checks are.
Partial scans
When the site blocks Guard or most checks cannot run, the score covers only the checks that ran (usually DNS and email), is capped at 75 and is shown as partial, without a risk level.
Risk levels
Leaked credentials and lookalike domains from OffSeq Breach. The counts are free; the detailed lists are paid add-ons.
Leaked records that mention labiekartosana.lv, from OffSeq Breach.
No leaked records found
Breach holds no records for labiekartosana.lv right now. New leaks arrive continuously, so monitoring on Breach alerts you if that changes.
Business context, site observations and technical notes gathered during the scan, and the standards behind each reference.
Automated reading of the public site. Ratings are indicative.
Reference chips under each finding point to the standard, regulation or specification the finding relates to. They are taken from the official datasets below and mapped conservatively: a finding with no defensible link shows none. NIS2 and GDPR references mark where a finding is relevant evidence, not a compliance verdict. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/2690 binds digital infrastructure and digital service providers; for other entities it is the most detailed public reading of the Article 21 measures. WCAG, EN 301 549, European Accessibility Act and Web Accessibility Directive references name the requirement an automated accessibility rule relates to; they are not a conformance verdict.
Retrieved 2026-10-25
Rate this report, add an optional comment, and tell us if you want a security specialist to follow up.
Reviews of this site
Share your experience with labiekartosana.lv. Every review is verified by email and published after moderation.
Community rating
No published reviews yet. Be the first to review labiekartosana.lv.